Structural Network Analysis Using Diffusion MRI Tractography in Parkinson's Disease and Correlations With Motor Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional impairment of spatially distributed brain regions in Parkinson's disease (PD) suggests changes in integrative and segregative network characteristics, for which novel analysis methods are available. To assess underlying structural network differences between PD patients and controls, we employed MRI T1 gray matter segmentation and diffusion MRI tractography to construct connectivity matrices to compare patients and controls with data originating from two different centers. In the Dutch dataset (Data-NL), 14 PD patients, and 15 healthy controls were analyzed, while 19 patients and 18 controls were included in the Canadian dataset (Data-CA). All subjects underwent T1 and diffusion-weighted MRI. Patients were assessed with Part 3 of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). T1 images were segmented using FreeSurfer, while tractography was performed using ExploreDTI. The regions of interest from the FreeSurfer segmentation were combined with the white matter streamline sets resulting from the tractography, to construct connectivity matrices. From these matrices, both global and local efficiencies were calculated, which were compared between the PD and control groups and related to the UPDRS motor scores. The connectivity matrices showed consistent patterns among the four groups, without significant differences between PD patients and control subjects, either in Data-NL or in Data-CA. In Data-NL, however, global and local efficiencies correlated negatively with UPDRS scores at both the whole-brain and the nodal levels [false discovery rate (FDR) 0.05]. At the nodal level, particularly, the posterior parietal cortex showed a negative correlation between UPDRS and local efficiency, while global efficiency correlated negatively with the UPDRS in the sensorimotor cortex. The spatial patterns of negative correlations between UPDRS and parameters for network efficiency seen in Data-NL suggest subtle structural differences in PD that were below sensitivity thresholds in Data-CA. These correlations are in line with previously described functional differences. The methodological approaches to detect such differences are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".